A very quickly written note to Dr. Peterson, in response to a Twitter post he made

Above anything else, I am a Christian. I believe all are made in the image of God and have to regain their likeness to Him through grace and virtue. This is true of all races of man.

I happen to be of European descent, living in America. My family is mostly the same, with Black, Mexican, and Korean mixed in, all of which is fine by me. I have no problems whatsoever with individuals of different races meeting, falling in love, and building families.

But I do have a problem -- a big problem -- with what is being done to "EEDs" (European and European-derived people).

Quote:This ad out of Poland — shot in English — tells a moving story… that touches on human truths and deep values, using subtle humor and pathos.

Is there anything inherently wrong with the video? Of course not. But there is something wrong with the fact that this otherwise ordinary, pretty bland video is being described as "moving story… that touches on human truths and deep values, using subtle humor and pathos." And there's something wrong with the fact that I was able to know what would happen. I knew how the commercial would end, complete with the mixed-race "surprise" that finished it. Why? Because we see it constantly, in numbers extremely disproportionate to the actual occurrence of mixed-race get-togethers such as the ones that characterize my own family. Watch for it; you will see it. All the time. If there were a few commercials, TV shows, and movies reflecting such periodically, I'd have zero problems with it. But what's going on is very in-your-face and real.

The "powers that be" seem intent on eradicating EED people. Most EED people don't want this to happen -- even those who are too afraid to say it out loud out of fear that even a desire to preserve their own people would be seen as "racist." They may or may not stop to think that if there were only three Chinese people, or three African people, or three Jewish people left in the world, it'd be universally seen as a tragedy -- while the extinction of white people is shouted for in academia. Or that if EED people migrated en masse, by the millions, to Ethiopia and out-numbered the native population, it'd be seen as "genocide." Or that the world takes it for granted that "Israel must remain Jewish" -- something Netanyahu says out loud, with no shame or fear whatsoever, as do rabbis and AIPAC and the ADL, etc., etc. And this is done while those same groups push immigration into the West:

(there are lots more videos like these)

EED people are attacked as a group. And we are attacked as "whites," even though mere skin color is pretty meaningless, and even though, before, most EED people may not have thought of themselves as "whites" but rather as "Poles" or "Norwegians," etc. We can play games with the continuum fallacy and ask "but what does 'white' even mean? Are Iranians 'white'?" But those who are very obviously, very overtly trying to destroy us know exactly whom they mean: they mean people of European ancestry. They know whom they mean when it's time to fill quotas or push "white allies" to the back at BLM rallies. They know whom they're targeting when talking about reparations for slavery. They know whom they're indicating when whites are told to leave the Evergreen campus for a day. They know to whom they're directing their rage in screeds like this one:

So what are EED people of good will supposed to do?

The answer obviously isn't (for a Christian, anyway) any form of fascism or Nazism, or anything else that wills evil to anyone. But the answer isn't to ignore the problem, either.

As a Christian, I fear the rise of racial animosity on the part of whites in retaliation for what is being done to EED people. "Their" doing it to us doesn't justify our doing it to "them." I firmly believe that, while general racial differences do, in fact, exist (e.g., IQ), with outliers always, there is no race that is ontologically superior or inferior to another. There is no race that is more or less beloved by God by virtue of genetics. And there is no race that is not owed charity because of DNA.

I believe that God judges us as individuals, and that we must do likewise when "judging" others. I believe that individuals must be judged by the content of their character and not by who their parents were. I believe in freedom of association, and know that Christ's Church in no way teaches that so-called "miscegenation" is wrong.

But when individuals become groups or mobs, and when those groups and mobs attack, we'd be foolish to split up and try to resist them one-by-one. If "they" act as a group and treat us as a group, they have to be dealt with as a group, and by a group at least as powerful as "they" are.

I have no problem with immigration in se -- but I have a big problem with unlimited, unvetted immigration that doesn't take into account the good of the host society. I think it a good thing for some "spice" and gene flow to come into a nation periodically, and, as I said, I believe in freedom of association (along with the freedom of nations to determine who can enter their borders). But when a nation is swarmed by people too disparate to assimilate, who don't have the will to assimilate, and who don't share a vision of the True, Good, and Beautiful -- well, it won't work.

I lament the attitudes of both those who constantly, with an obvious agenda, portray white families as invariably mixed-race and those who think "race-mixing" is evil.

The rise of white supremacists (who are different from "mere" white nationalists -- a group to which I also don't belong) is sad, but understandable. And it's scary. It's scary to me on a personal level given the nature of my family. The very real grievances they have must be talked about and dealt with! They can't be just chucked to the side and ignored where their effects will "fester like a sore" and then "explode," to use Langston Hughes's words.

For me, my wish is for Muslims to be out of the West altogether. They are completely incompatible insofar as they take Islam seriously and believe its tenets. I wish for Jewish groups like the ADL, et. al., to be called out for their radical hypocrisy and to stop agitating for policies that seem designed to destroy the West and its Christian heritage. I want for the liberal policies and critical theory that are helping to keep blacks poor and enraged to disappear. I want for EED people to end their self-hatred and retain their instinct for survival without nursing animosity toward people of other races. I want those who over-emphasize race on both sides to stop. I want for identity politics to end, and for a healthy love of one's own people to take its place, for everyone. I want for everyone to embrace the Gospel, understand it in the traditional way, and live it.

How do we know there were three? We don't know that from Scripture, but tradition relates that were were three, and that there were three gifts mentioned supports this notion as well. Tradition says, too, that these three men were representative of the three ages of man and of the three "racial types" of man, the three families that descended from Noe's three sons (Sem, Cham, and Japheth). According to tradition, Caspar was the young, beardless, ruddy descendant of Ham who brought frankincense. Melchior was an old, white-haired, bearded descendant of Sem who brought gold. And Balthasar was a bearded black descendant of Japheth, in the prime of his life, who brought myrrh (see the works of the Venerable Bede). The three Magi: symbols of all the races of man, invited to worship the One God as one, and all equally beloved by Him. As different as the peoples of the world may be, as different as the cultures and languages that have arisen, and as prudent or imprudent our living together in one place may be given those differences, we are all potentially one in Him.

The Church sees the family -- neither the "rugged individual" nor the collective -- as the basic unit of society. It's the family that shapes the individual, and it's families that make up the collective. There is no "I" without the "we" of family. Babies are helpless. It's family that nurses them and gives them language. The races of man are very large extended families -- families that should love each other, families whose members sometimes get together and integrate along the edges (something that keeps populations healthy!). But those families exist, and they have familial characteristics that add to the true diversity of the world. The EED family wanting to live on and pass down its culture to its children is a good thing. And those goals can be accomplished without hatred or evil.

Please, use that brilliant mind of yours to help make that happen.

Edited to add: I think the same way about feminists and the "white sharia" types: if both sides would shut the Hell up, nature would do its thing. If feminists, academia, the media, and government would stop shaping a culture in which every woman is pressured into a career, and if the "sharia" types who are backlashing against them would all shut their pie-holes, most women, because of how most women are built, would want to become homemakers and raise children -- while the outlier women could use their gifts and achieve their callings at the same time.

But in order to entice more women to become the homemakers most would love to be, we have to restore the extended family and the old-school, parish-based sort of culturally homogeneous neighborhoods that provided women with a social life. As things are, raising kids in a nuclear-style family, stuck alone in some suburban house all day, 24/7, with no adult company, no help, no breaks, is horribly isolating. I wish the "sharia types" would think about women's welfare and needs once in a while -- just as much as I wish feminists would try to understand and have some compassion for men.

Someone snarkily tweeted to Dr. Peterson and accused him of working for "the Jews." He posted a link to a video of him giving a talk about the Balfour Declaration. I want to respond to something I heard in that video:

Dr. Peterson, people are focused on Israel not out of jealousy over Jewish accomplishment, but because of:

2) The political ramifications of founding a Zionist state in that area.

2) The inordinate influence AIPAC has over American politics -- an influence that got the U.S. into the Iraq war, a way that cost American lives, cost the American taxpayers dearly, destabilized Iraq which led to the genocide of Christians and to Muslim immigration into the West, etc. Please check this book:

With regard to the Jewish people (rather than Israel) is the matter of the dis-ingenuousness about the nature of the post-Temple Jewish religion -- a very different religion than the Old Testament religion -- and the religion's explicit racism and anti-Christian animus. Obviously, not all Jews are religious Jews, but post-Temple Judaism informs secular Jewish culture, generally, in the same way that Americans who've never read the Constitution and don't care about politics still know full well they have their rights. The sort of attitude shown by Sarah Silverman here characterizes the problem:

These things are real issues that need to be discussed honestly, without hatred or nastiness. The story of Jewish-Christian relations needs to be looked at openly, with "the other side of the story" being told (such is most definitely not the case now).

And I'm telling you, in just the past decade, I've seen a huge -- and I mean H-U-G-E -- change in the number of people talking about this stuff, and the manner in which they do it. I fear that there will be true and explicit hatred shown for and violence against Jews if these things aren't dealt with in the spirit of Truth and Love.

I am sure you already have, but please save this letter. It would serve as a template to send to many intellectuals who may be on the edge of sympathetic and have a wide reader/viewer ship base.

"The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the Second Vatican Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to salvation, the Faith loses its foundation." -Benedict XVI, Avvenire interview, March 16th, 2016

Yes white liberal progressivists SJW feminists and clueless conservative republican denialists, please continue to nitpick white males to death and keep them on the defensive, forcing them with the weight of the mainstream media to prove a negative, that they are not racists for the crime of not being sorry for their ethnicity and not wanting to be demographically replaced.

Meanwhile these traitorous, gutless pathetic human beings look the other way when it comes to the epidemic of black on white crime and the emboldened sentiments of African Americans like the above.

What is it going to take to wake some people up...

Incidentally, does anyone care to explain how in the fudge bucket do those black twitter users still have a non suspended twitter account, when Twitter official suspends Alt-Rightists for "hate"; and yet they go no where near the advocation of murder like these people of color do..?

"The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the Second Vatican Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to salvation, the Faith loses its foundation." -Benedict XVI, Avvenire interview, March 16th, 2016

Really excellent letter. The citations and examples you provide are (or should be) pretty irrefutable. I think so much of the animosity that whites and other natives feel stems primarily from a loss of agency. Demographic replacement didn't meet the resistance it currently does several decades ago. That was when the media and even the GOP promoted the lie that Hispanics were "natural conservatives." This of course is total BS. I guarantee you that most of the white nationalist movement would dissipate overnight if it turned out that the majority of immigrants were actually voting majority GOP based on right wing and religious principles. This is because the demographic issue and even the race issue are genuinely symptoms to the underlying cause: The elites of this country decided that it was easier to replace voters than to cater to them. It is a novel, and fundamentally Constitution-breaking, solution to the pesky "problem" of normal people with their own interests. Now, that's not to say that demographics and race don't matter, as you point out. It's not to say that racial in-group preferences don't exist. But all of that is deeply attenuated when you take this underlying issue into account.

Instead of perpetuating the lie about Hispanics being natural conservatives, the new tack is all-out race war and the fostering of animosity. That much is clear. And by the way, I'm implicating the Left in this, not Trump. But watch how when the Left loses power, it shrinks back into a message of "let's move past our differences and work together." You can see this message taking shape, although the race-war Antifa types are still the loudest part of the Left currently. Meanwhile, the GOP elite is fighting tooth and nail against immigration reform despite it leading categorically to electoral losses. Does anyone ever stop to think why this is? It really depolarizes those neurons, sending those action-potentials to your synaptic cleft.

Post-temple Jews don't worship the same God as Christians. It's clearly in scripture.

Quote:Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also.

All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him

They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my Father: if you did know me, perhaps you would know my Father also.

He that hateth me, hateth my Father also.

I'm sure there are others. If the Jews hate Christ then they hate the Father. If they do not know Christ, then they do not know the Father. Christ makes this clear that if they choose not to follow Him they do not worship God.

Blood of Christ, relief of the burdened, save us.

“It is my design to die in the brew house; let ale be placed in my mouth when I am expiring, that when the choirs of angels come, they may say, “Be God propitious to this drinker.” – St. Columbanus, A.D. 612

Quote:Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also.

All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him

They said therefore to him: Where is thy Father? Jesus answered: Neither me do you know, nor my Father: if you did know me, perhaps you would know my Father also.

He that hateth me, hateth my Father also.

I'm sure there are others. If the Jews hate Christ then they hate the Father. If they do not know Christ, then they do not know the Father. Christ makes this clear that if they choose not to follow Him they do not worship God.

Beyond Scripture, there is historical/genetic evidence that Jews today do not share the same blood as the ancient Israelites. Their religion is entirely different from the Israelite faith from the concept of sacrifice to the religious texts, which are more recent inventions than the New Testament. I blame Vatican II for the wool that was pulled over people's eyes in regard to this simple truth, and all the deceivers who parrot the "Jesus was a Jew" line.

By the way, is it true that the term Jew in itself was an invention of the KJV Bible? I forget where I heard that.

(12-04-2017, 01:43 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: By the way, is it true that the term Jew in itself was an invention of the KJV Bible? I forget where I heard that.

No. The word existed (in obviously different spelling) in Middle English, which had taken it from Old French. Shakespeare used it in 'The Merchant of Venice' which was written over a decade before the KJV was translated.

(12-04-2017, 01:43 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: By the way, is it true that the term Jew in itself was an invention of the KJV Bible? I forget where I heard that.

No. The word existed (in obviously different spelling) in Middle English, which had taken it from Old French. Shakespeare used it in 'The Merchant of Venice' which was written over a decade before the KJV was translated.

Interesting. But then in that case, shouldn't the term still not appear in the Bible? I suppose it's a translator's decision, but what were the terms previously used where "Jew" is now found? Israelite/Hebrew?

(12-04-2017, 04:10 PM)Imperator Caesar Trump Wrote: Interesting. But then in that case, shouldn't the term still not appear in the Bible? I suppose it's a translator's decision, but what were the terms previously used where "Jew" is now found? Israelite/Hebrew?

I'm not sure what you mean by, 'shouldn't the term still not appear in the Bible?' It occurs in Greek in the famous verse, Galatians 3:28,